The potential transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on science, education, work and society is critical to the future of employee assistance. Our survey study was designed to better understand where, how and why EAPs are employing AI at their organizations and vendor businesses. We wanted to understand what is working, what is not working and why. Additionally, we asked about ethical and operational concerns. To this end, we conducted an online self-report survey. With the support of the Employee Assistance European Forum (EAEF), Asian Pacific Employee Assistance Roundtable (APEAR) and 5 other major professional groups in the industry, the researchers issued an international call for participation. We collected data from 222 survey respondents including a mix of embedded internal staff, external vendor and hybrid model programs situated in a diverse range of workplaces and practice settings. Voices of EAPs were represented in the study from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, England, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Luxemburg, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Poland, United Kingdom, United States, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. Subgroup of 40 respondents who were members of EAEF (n = 25) or APEAR (n = 13) or were non-members living in same regions (n=9). This group was compared to the other 182 participants. Early findings reveal low current use of AI technology (but higher in Asia and Europe) coupled with widespread future interest. Many concerns were raised among practitioners, programs and vendors around limited clinical efficacy for AI chatbots, client data privacy for AI users, integration of AI tools into counseling delivery activities (“blended care” models) and business implementation issues of cost and training staff. The results reflect a profile of ambivalence with a range of both positive and negative attitudes toward AI technology. Nonetheless, 78% of respondents believe AI will play an increasing role in the future of EAP service delivery. We also explored global regional and programmatic differences in key results among the sample.